Jump to content

馃敧 Backstabbing Questions 馃敧 (i need even more help! 馃啒)


icebrand

Recommended Posts

You are invisible and attack an enemy, what are the bonuses for this?

Success in move silently and unengaged opponent:

1- Melee attack from the front?

2- flanking melee attack?

3- 1&2 with ranged attacks?

What happens if you fail the move silently?聽

And then the same questions all over, but the opponent is engaged with a 3rd party.

"It seems I'm destined not to move ahead in time faster than my usual rate of one second per second"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surprise adds +3 to any action the surprised defender wants to perform in the round they are surprised (p193-194).聽 Heaven forfend they have to choose between preparing a weapon OR聽a shield.聽 Also, they won't have spells cast.聽 Attacking an unaware/defenseless opponent also gets a +40% bonus (p223).聽

Page 224 also indicated that there is a penalty for darkness, hence a GM may see fit to invoke a penalty to defend against someone who is constantly moving to flank when engaging a single character.

Remember that in RQ, having your spells cast before combat is an extreme advantage, and doubled if the enemy has nothing prepared.聽 A surprised character will have no spells cast, and likely no weapons drawn.聽 It is possible they won't have a helmet on, and may not even be wearing armor, as armor is uncomfortable to wear when you apparently don't need it.

In terms of invisibility, arguably the total darkness rules could apply (-75% to attack and parry, p224) for the round in which surprise is initiated.聽 Remember that invisibility drops in the instant when the attack lands.

It is also possible to invoke the aimed blow rules to attack at the end of the round at half skill to guarantee where the hit will land (p197) on SR 12, pretty much insuring that no other action can be taken by their enemy that round.

In terms of extra damage, RQ is not D&D, and you don't get rogue backstab damage.聽 The reason a surprise attack does more damage is that it is delivered with more ease and skill, and so is more likely to achieve a critical or special result (pages 204-206).

Note, that as written, one's best defense against a surprise attack is to be able to dodge effectively, as this requires no preparation.聽 Of course if you are in a military formation and you dodge, you have broken your position in that formation.

Edited by Darius West
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the target is completely unaware (as opposed to in combat and just not seeing you), I don't think an automatic crit in melee is unreasonable.

Otherwise, it's probably just a matter of no defensive聽roll.

Flanking isn't a thing in RQ, apart from the multiple defence rolls penalty.

Edited by Akh么rahil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Akh么rahil said:

Flanking isn't a thing in RQ, apart from the multiple defence rolls penalty.

RQCE gives a +20% bonus for flanking and RQ3 gave... I think 10?

"It seems I'm destined not to move ahead in time faster than my usual rate of one second per second"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/13/2021 at 1:29 PM, icebrand said:

You are invisible and attack an enemy, what are the bonuses for this?

Success in move silently and unengaged opponent:

1- Melee attack from the front?

2- flanking melee attack?

3- 1&2 with ranged attacks?

Page 223:

Quote

Attacking From Advantage or Disadvantage

  • Defenseless or Unaware Opponent:聽unaware of the attacker. +40%
  • Helpless Opponent: is killed,聽unless the attacker rolls a 96鈥00 or fumbles

On 9/13/2021 at 1:29 PM, icebrand said:

What happens if you fail the move silently?

depends on the outcome vs listen. But if they become aware of the attacker as above, no bonus.

On 9/13/2021 at 1:29 PM, icebrand said:

And then the same questions all over, but the opponent is engaged with a 3rd party.

As above.

-----

Search the Glorantha Resource Site:聽https://wellofdaliath.chaosium.com.聽Search the Glorantha mailing list archives:聽https://glorantha.steff.in/digests/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Kloster said:

RQ3 was +10% if attacking from rear or unshielded side.

Which implies literally everyone gets the flanking bonus if you don't use a shield.

Which is weird from an rpg but pretty realistic if you ask me, since supposedly shields are several times better than parrying with a weapon!

"It seems I'm destined not to move ahead in time faster than my usual rate of one second per second"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, icebrand said:

Which implies literally everyone gets the flanking bonus if you don't use a shield.

Everybody that is not just in front of the defender, yes.

56 minutes ago, icebrand said:

Which is weird from an rpg but pretty realistic if you ask me, since supposedly shields are several times better than parrying with a weapon!

They are much easier to use, or at least to learn to use, hence their quite high base skill value. On the other hand, it is pretty difficult to parry with your attacking weapon, and this is one of the reason I don't like the single skill for attack and parry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Kloster said:

Everybody that is not just in front of the defender, yes

Welcome to GM from hell, hosted by yours truly, Icebrand; today's topic:

"Every side is an unshielded side if you don't carry a shield"

My players should be so happy we don't play RQ3 lol 馃ぃ馃ぃ馃ぃ

We use 1 skill too (houseruled into CE) because it's faster, easier and cooler (though less realistic)

Edited by icebrand

"It seems I'm destined not to move ahead in time faster than my usual rate of one second per second"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, icebrand said:

...

Which is weird from an rpg but pretty realistic if you ask me...

Realize that RQ combat was originally designed (back in the 1970's) by one of the founding members of the SCA -- Society for Creative Anachronism -- who liked to armor-up and bash each other with medieval-themed safety weapons.聽 "weird from an rpg but pretty realistic" is ENTIRELY within the RQ play-style.聽 馃檪

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, g33k said:

Realize that RQ combat was originally designed (back in the 1970's) by one of the founding members of the SCA -- Society for Creative Anachronism -- who liked to armor-up and bash each other with medieval-themed safety weapons.聽 "weird from an rpg but pretty realistic" is ENTIRELY within the RQ play-style.聽 馃檪

We know!!! It's amazing. I always overlooked the shield thing, and i think that small 10% really makes wonders for shield use!!!.

Right now we playing CE and i rather give shields a small (+5 medium +10 large) defense bonus instead?

"It seems I'm destined not to move ahead in time faster than my usual rate of one second per second"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/14/2021 at 4:15 PM, Kloster said:

RQ3 was +10% if attacking from rear or unshielded side.

On 9/14/2021 at 4:18 PM, icebrand said:

Which implies literally everyone gets the flanking bonus if you don't use a shield.

I don't think that that is a reasonable conclusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

I don't think that that is a reasonable conclusion.

And a sword being better at parrying than a shield (no "attacker on the other side" thing somehow is????

"It seems I'm destined not to move ahead in time faster than my usual rate of one second per second"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/14/2021 at 10:18 PM, icebrand said:

Which implies literally everyone gets the flanking bonus if you don't use a shield.

No. When you use a shield, you give less attention to those on the shield side, and focus more on those on the weapon side.

When you don't have a shield, you spread your focus/attention around more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Shiningbrow said:

No. When you use a shield, you give less attention to those on the shield side, and focus more on those on the weapon side.

When you don't have a shield, you spread your focus/attention around more.

That would work if the shielded side gave a -10% attack chance, but what you propose gives an mechanical advantage to melee weapons at parrying, a thing shields are renowned to be better at.

Plus, the rule is quite clear it says "unshielded side". A fighter with a one/two 1h weapons or a 2h weapon doesn't have a shielded side, making all their sides unshielded.

"It seems I'm destined not to move ahead in time faster than my usual rate of one second per second"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Shiningbrow said:

No. When you use a shield, you give less attention to those on the shield side, and focus more on those on the weapon side.

When you don't have a shield, you spread your focus/attention around more.

No. Even with a shield, you pay attention to everybody in range. What changes is the quantity and speed of movement you have to perform to stay protected.

21 minutes ago, icebrand said:

Plus, the rule is quite clear it says "unshielded side". A fighter with a one/two 1h weapons or a 2h weapon doesn't have a shielded side, making all their sides unshielded.

What I understand with 'Unshielded side' is the right or left side where there is no shield. Of course, when you have no shield, both are unshielded, but front and back are not side, so are not unshielded side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, icebrand said:

And a sword being better at parrying than a shield (no "attacker on the other side" thing somehow is????

In fact, it is not difficult to parry with a sword ... if you don't attack with it. What is difficult is parrying with your attack weapon (or, if you want, attack with the weapon you just parried with). Having never fought with a sword in each hand, I can't say anything about real world 2 sword fighting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Kloster said:

No. Even with a shield, you pay attention to everybody in range. What changes is the quantity and speed of movement you have to perform to stay protected.

What I understand with 'Unshielded side' is the right or left side where there is no shield. Of course, when you have no shield, both are unshielded, but front and back are not side, so are not unshielded side.

As a GM, i don't consider the back side shielded, and do consider the front and shield side shielded.

And you can bet every single person without a shield gets their opponent a +10% attack bonus.

And when my hypothetical players say "hey dude that rule sucks" i say NO, IS THIS GAME THAT SUCKS!!! and i throw the books out the window (and they land over someone you dislike) and pick up RQG books from the shelf and then there's some 80s hair metal riff and and grandma (who was bringing cookies to the table) starts clapping.

"It seems I'm destined not to move ahead in time faster than my usual rate of one second per second"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, icebrand said:

As a GM, i don't consider the back side shielded, and do consider the front and shield side shielded.

The rule was :'+10% if attacking from rear or unshielded side', so rear is specifically covered. I find perfectly correct to count front as shielded (of course, if there is a shield), but I personally don't apply this modifier for a front attack.

23 minutes ago, icebrand said:

And when my hypothetical players say "hey dude that rule sucks"

If you feel a rule to be bad, do as I do: Change it. I personally reverted to RQ3 combat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Kloster said:

In fact, it is not difficult to parry with a sword ... if you don't attack with it. What is difficult is parrying with your attack weapon (or, if you want, attack with the weapon you just parried with). Having never fought with a sword in each hand, I can't say anything about real world 2 sword fighting.

In fact, the one time i fenced i found it extremely hard to parry, or even dodge, but maybe that was because my opponent was a panam-class fencer maybe 馃ぃ

After "dying" 15+ times i finally managed to parry an easily telegraphed, side sweep than I'm pretty sure wasn't even a fencing move and just for fun.聽

"It seems I'm destined not to move ahead in time faster than my usual rate of one second per second"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Kloster said:

If you feel a rule to be bad, do as I do: Change it. I personally reverted to RQ3 combat.

I honestly think RQ3 aged badly, unlike CE wich, lets be honest, always had better gameplay.

In my campaign we use CE rules with rune points and 1 skill for weapons (more realistic anyway, who learns to attack and not defend? And if you keep the %s closer, is it really needed?)

We also ditched the SR system for DEX ranks from BRP, because they are just faster. We only use SR the first round of melee combat, and then we use DEX ranks.

Whats appealing to you about RQ3 system that made you go back to it?

"It seems I'm destined not to move ahead in time faster than my usual rate of one second per second"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, icebrand said:

more realistic anyway, who learns to attack and not defend?

This is Jeff's argument to go to 1 single skill. This is right, nobody learns to attack and not to parry (or to parry and not to attack), but the experience is a completely different matter. My personal experience as a fencer was that I was quite a good attacker (probably above 90%), but not a good defender (around 60%). I lost during a french national championship finals with ... 0 points because my opponent parried all my attacks, and I could parry only some of his.

14 minutes ago, icebrand said:

Whats appealing to you about RQ3 system that made you go back to it?

The separate skills, the moves integrated with the SR, the number of actions per round, the special maneuvers and effects (disarm, knockback,...), the 10 SR round, ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Kloster said:

聽My personal experience as a fencer was that I was quite a good attacker (probably above 90%), but not a good defender (around 60%). I lost during a french national championship finals with ... 0 points because my opponent parried all my attacks, and I could parry only some of his.

So, doesn't he guy had 120% and lowered your skill work then?聽

My experience is in judo so i know nothing about swords, but i literally never found anyone that was easy to throw but good at throwing.

"It seems I'm destined not to move ahead in time faster than my usual rate of one second per second"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, icebrand said:

So, doesn't he guy had 120% and lowered your skill work then?聽

My experience is in judo so i know nothing about swords, but i literally never found anyone that was easy to throw but good at throwing.

No, I was by far better than him in attacking. He didn't manage to hit every time and I parried some of his attacks, but not all. He parried (in fencing, more properly deflected) all mine. And my experience with HtH combat is close to 0, so I can not comment on that point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Kloster said:

No, I was by far better than him in attacking. He didn't manage to hit every time and I parried some of his attacks, but not all. He parried (in fencing, more properly deflected) all mine. And my experience with HtH combat is close to 0, so I can not comment on that point.

That sounds completely bizarre to me? Maybe is a language barrier? Like, if he didn't manage to hit you, it means you parried. I seriously doubt he would have hit air if you didn't actively defend?

"It seems I'm destined not to move ahead in time faster than my usual rate of one second per second"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...